Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (39213)	4/13/2004 12:43:33 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 793845

Humphrey Nixon and Carter Ford races may have had less than majority too and they came after kennedy nixon. Mike

To: Ilaine who wrote (39213)	4/14/2004 9:31:19 AM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793845

<<<You were going along just fine until you stumbled here.>>> That is the problem with premption. The premptor could misread people's intent. I don't have a quick link to my post, but somewhere I posted immediately after the elections that that was the way the system works. I think I used a sports analogy that in baseball the umpire's decision, right or wrong is part of the game. It works for both sides. GWB won the election fair and square - whether you like him or not. My question was, if the next time the other side with fewer supporters won and used premption (I used a very incendiary example that I deleted - one I am fairly certain you would be opposed to) - how then would you feel about preemptive acts. Actually with fewer and much more support does not really matter that much. As far as my intent is concerned, it has nothing to do with the current situation. It has to do with using deadly force under any circumstances and in particular in a premptive mode. Forget about current conditions, if you were a policy maker what would your policy be? I think if you take out the immediate situation, you could come out with a more objective solution. You may want to look at it from the perspective that deadly forced is used in your favor or against you - something the founding fathers did not think was an impossibility - that people in power may abuse their power.